ORDER 1. An extent of two acres of land was granted on 4-8-1962 to the father of the second respondent with a condition that the said land should not be alienated within a period of fifteen years. The father of the second respondent sold the said land to the appellant on 29-4-1966. This date is disputed by the learned counsel for the second respondent contending that, as held by the Assistant Commissioner, the date of transfer is 24-7-1967. The Karnataka Scheduled Castes and Scheduled Tribes (Prohibition of Transfer of Certain Lands) Act, 1978 (for short "the Act") came into force on 1-1-1979. The second respondent, under the provisions of the said Act, applied for restoration of the said land on the ground that the transfer had been made in violation of the non-alienation clause of the grant. The Assistant Commissioner, after holding enquiry, declared the sale made in favour of the appellant as null and void and, consequently, directed the restoration of the said land in favour of the second respondent. In appeal filed by the appellan, the Deputy Commissioner did not find any good ground to take a different view and dismissed the appeal. The appellant filed a writ petition challenging the correctness of the order made by the Deputy Commissioner in appeal affirming the order made by the Assistant Commissioner. The learned Single Judge rejecting the contention of the appellant that he had perfected title by adverse possession dismissed the writ petition. The appellant pursued the matter further by filing a writ appeal before the Division Bench of that High Court. The Division Bench of the High Court, by the impugned judgment, finding no merit in the contentions raised in the appeal and agreeing with the conclusion arrived at by the learned Single Judge, dismissed the appeal observing that the learned Single Judge had rightly decided the case following the judgment of this Court in K. T. Huchegowda v. Dy. Commr.1 2. Before us, in this appeal, on behalf of the appellant, it was contended that no action could have been taken against the appellant for restoration of the land after a period of twelve years from the date of transfer and that a twelve years period expired before the Act came into force; the grantee could not have taken any action against him after the expiry of the period of twelve years. 3. 3. In opposition, the learned counsel for the second respondent made submissions supporting the impugned order. 4. The action for restoration was taken at the instance of the second b respondent. The Government had every right to take action to declare the sale as null and void and to resume the land, of course, after following the necessary procedure as laid down under the Act. This being the position, tbe Division Bench of the High Court was right in affirming the order of the learned Single Judge. Although, the second respondent could not have taken any action after the expiry of twelve-year period but that did not prevent the C State Government from taking action. In this view, the civil appeal has no merit. Consequently, it is dismissed. 5. No costs.